Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
, kelly, this is steve kornacki. part of this story, then, involves the potential nomination of susan rice, the u.n. amambassador, to replace hillary clinton at the state democratic. it's susan rice who a lot of republicans have decided lied to the public. they allege was executing some kind of intentional cover-up plot by the administration. i don't know how that would work or what the cover-up would be. be that as it may, that's what republicans are saying. you have john mccain and lindsey graham both saying if her nomination is put forward, they will filibuster it. are there any indications that that would become an official republican party position, because if the republicans unite, they would have the 40 votes to kill it by filibuster. >> there is a lot of opposition among republicans to a potential susan rice nomination. people are not actively talking about filibuster, although that's the obvious presumption if you talk about members trying to block something like this. in some was they are saying that she was schoezen bied white house to be the public face in the early days after
are john kerry and u.n. ambassador susan rice, who has been caught up in the questions about benghazi. so if hillary clinton does leave, does that put more pressure on the president to go in a different direction other than susan rice? >> well, i'm only speculating now, because my reporting on this dates back to well before the election when i got a little bit focused there. i will say that if you talk to people in democratic establishment and political establishment on the hill and in national security circles, you do find that neither of those candidates is seen right now as a perfect choice. there are drawbacks to both of them. ambassador rice has a lot of supporters first and foremost, the president to be sure. controversy over her public statements about benghazi give people pause about whether she's the right person with a confirmation process over, whether she's the right person for the job. in the case of senator kerry, there's doubts from some people about whether he'd be the perfect secretary of state. he was passed over four years ago for secretary clinton. if you took him out
really glomed onto is what susan rice said on face the nation. i want to play her comments so we can put that in context. >> i understand you have been saying that you think it was sfont n spontaneous. are we not on the same page here? >> let me tell you what we understand to the assessment at present. first of all, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the united states government will launch led by the fbi. we want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, what it began spontaneously in benghazi. >> so she's actually very cautious, you know. lots of caveats. she gets asked specifically if al qaeda might have been involved. she said need further information. we don't know. so a lot of the attacks specifically on her for what she said irng are totally baseless. the other piece of this is the implication is there's some sort of cover-up. that, you know, the president and the administration wanted to hide that this was really
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)